It would be nice if there was a philosophy that reflected back some of the beauty of expression we experienced in the world.

These days - philosophy is seen of as mostly a crutch. Especially modern day academic philosophers. Where's the new philosophies of the world that get folks excited? That impress them? That they can immediately appreciate?

Behold - Some clarity to what's usually very messy racism debates! The MOQ brings it!

I have white skin, others have a different color. They're just different colors. These are the biological values of the human race. We all have a body and it has a skin color, but these really have nothing to do with the cultures within which we are born.

There are world cultures. Cultures are unique groupings of intellectual and social values and they change all the time. Some more quickly than others.

Some associate a particular culture with a particular skin color and think because a skin color can't change, then the culture can't change either. This is called Racism and it's immoral and incorrect.

Simply criticizing a culture from afar doesn't mean that you're being racist. The key thing is if you believe that culture can change for the better as a result of those criticisms. Another key factor is if criticism is indeed the best way for that other culture to change (probably not) but the original point about it not being racist still stands.

With this in mind - for those outside of Australian Politics - Kerri Anne Kennerly (KAK) is Australian television royalty in line with Barbara Walters in the US. But her opinions on the latest 'Australia Day' protests by indigenous groups has one of her co-hosts - Yumi Styne - caling her racist.

We can break Kerri Anne's original premise which drew the racism charge down as follows:

Kerri Anne starts by asking if any of the protesters have been out to the outback to see the sub-standard living conditions of indigenous folks there where numerous studies have shown a far higher rate of child abuse and substance abuse as well as a general lack of school attendance and education.

This criticism, whilst it is indeed based in fact, has a glaring problem. That problem is the implied criticism that because they have issues within their own community they should not be throwing stones at another very related issue - the Australian National Day and how it's emblematic of indigenous mistreatment in Australia.

And here Kerri Anne's implied criticism is incorrect. Just because indigenous Australians have problems within their own communities, the way to solve those problems might indeed include a better reconciliation with non-indigenous Australians, and so they should indeed be able to protest the date of the national day.

So it's not clear if it is indeed racism(probably not) that's driving Kerri Anne's insistence that protesters stop protesting and go to the outback instead. But it is misguided to insist this and it doesn't seem to be in line with any sort of reconciliation that would reduce the alienation issues amongst not only indigenous Australians but indigenous groups across the world.

See - the MOQ brings a bit of clarity to racism debates and makes them far more constructive.

Can we all start using it when we want to discuss any issues amongst cultures please?

I see the Metaphysics of Quality as an answer to existentialism which continually points out the apparent utter meaninglessness of existence. The scientific presentation of this clip really shows the origins of those ideas and how if A causes B then it really asks "What's the point?" The title and main lyric of the song 'Remind Me' really do echo the mood of existentialism which really doesn't have much of an answer but is merely reflecting back what science seems to be telling us.

I feel like right after this clip the Metaphysics of Quality takes over. Well it did in my life anyway.

After someone recently asked me if the philosophy I'm interested in is like that of Jordan Peterson and knowing there are a few othersout therethat have wondered the same thing. I figured I might as well give something close to an official Metaphysics of Quality perspective here. Now having completed the below review - I am surprised at how beautifully the MOQ puts perspective on this debate and how quickly I was able to get a clear handle of the arguments on both sides.

Anyway - as is often the case with most post modern philosophy or whatever you'd like to call it - I often struggle to understand the ideas presented. 'Modern' philosophy or whatever you'd like to call it seems to me to be a bunch of intellectuals who are stuck in word games struggling within a bad metaphysics trying to describe something with words that don't easily match what they're trying to describe. It seems as if they've been asked to define a pen but not be allowed to talk, in any way, about writing.

Because of this, and Jordan Peterson's strange and apparently contradictory logic on the first video I watched - the easiest way for me to understand his ideas was by the above Youtube critique where he clearly lays out Peterson's definition of truth and that of some of his opponents.

Peterson defines truth as either:

Newtonian - Logical positivism (Materialistic)

Darwinian or Metaphorical - That which permits survival and reproduce. 'If it's true enough so that if you enact it out or hold it then it's true.' And 'The ethical pursuit supersedes the scientific pursuit with regards to truth claim.' As well as 'The fundamentals of truth are those that guide action.'

The host (Stephen Woodford) objects to this for two reasons:

It appears to allow for multiple truths to simultaneously exist

It de-prioritizes the importance of 'objective' truth beyond our opinions of it.

And hello here we are with two problems the Metaphysics of Quality solves. It's surprising but Peterson is actually correct in his definition but he is being limited by the metaphysics of his argument so is going to lose the argument.

To be clear - the Metaphysics of Quality (MOQ) resolves the first objection by claiming that multiple truths can exist because it's not truth but Quality which is fundamental. There is one Quality that's the source of all things and there can be many truths. Truth - defined as a high quality idea - can change depending on the situation and what's pragmatically best at any time.

The second objection is painfully stuck in a Subject-Object metaphysical (SOM) view of the world.

'If it's only Subjective then it can't be Objective'. - Every modern day philosopher.

But what the MOQ makes clear is that man is the measure of all things. And that while he is indeed the subjective measure of all things - as Peterson alludes to - there is a moral thing called Quality that's beyond anyone's opinion of it - and is more real than anything else. Quality is experience itself. But being stuck in SOM Peterson can't say that and so he's going to get stuck in word soup and accusations of being plainly a subjective idealist as he apparently did in a long interview with fellow interlocutor Sam Harris.

As an aside - what's interesting to me at this point however is that if he stuck with plain old idealism he might actually win that argument against the realists. Because the idea that a world exists 'out there' is indeed just that - an idea. We can say it's a very good idea from a MOQ perspective, and that's why it can indeed be true as well, but it's really an idea. But he doesn't want to stick to just idealism because he, as most people, appreciates the power of materialism and knows his argument will be weaker if that's the point he wants to make.

So in conclusion, I'm surprised that, at least in regards to his conception of truth, the Metaphysics of Quality leans on the side of Jordan Peterson in this debate where he argues that truth is ethically tinged. But the MOQ by no means wholly supports his ideas as they end up in contradictions and word soup due to a lack of metaphysical clarity. Therefore I agree with some reddit posters, as linked above, that suggest he checks out Lila by Robert Pirsig which contains the first description of the Metaphysics of Quality which would greatly improve the intellectual clarity of his ideas.